As Libertarian Party Splits is Boston their Next Frontier?
There was an interesting post last week at one of my longtime favorite reads, Politics1, about a recent split in the U.S. Libertarian Party. For those that don't know, the Libertarian Party is arguably the largest third party in America, claiming over 200,000 registered members in all 50 states. They call themselves neither liberal nor conservative, but a "principled medium" that agrees with Republicans on "fiscal liberty" and Democrats on "social freedoms." So basically, they want you to have your guns and pay no taxes but marry whomever you damn well please.
Apparently the split happened as Libertarians gathered in Oregon on July 1st and 2nd for a convention to set their platform and elect national officers. At the convention a group of moderate Libertarians calling themselves the Libertarian Reform Caucus, concerned that for too long the party has clung to an ultra-radical positions that alienated other "freedom loving people" and cost the party electoral success, successfully fought to drastically alter the platform and elect themselves to national positions within the party.
For their part, hardliners within the party have claimed that the Libertarian Reform Caucus is just an cover for "neocon traitors" who have infiltrated the party. Led by folks like Arizona Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Barry Hess, these hardliners have vowed to stick by the original platform and warned against an impending major schism within the oldest third party in American politics.
Interestingly it seems the most vocal breakaway group to emerge so far is one which calls itself the, Boston Tea Party (and to their credit they did snag a pretty sweet domain). From a historic standpoint I suppose this name makes sense. The original Boston Tea Party was a revolt against unjust government intrusion an imposition into the lives of colonial residents. These hardliners are some of the staunchest anti-government factions which still participate in U.S. democracy (as opposed to Republic of Texas or New Hampshire Free State people). They see themselves as revolutionaries against a party infiltrated by forces (neo-cons) which have drastically increased the size of government during their rule. It's not a perfect analogy, but it makes sense.
From a pragmatic standpoint, however, I wonder why these hardliners would ever chose such a name. Sure the Boston Tea Party has really nothing to do modern-day Boston, but usually the name of a political party has some relation to the constituency it represents. Take, for example, the Massachusetts Democratic Party or the Republican National Committee. Such thinking would suggest that the Boston Tea Party is a Boston-based organization.
With the likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, contemporary Massachusetts is hardly a bastion of libertarianism. As a progressive Democrat I find this comforting as extreme fiscal libertarianism seems a dangerous and selfish proposition to me. I wonder, therefore, how effective such a name might in in building support for the new Libertarian faction among your run of the mill, hardline libertarians who may not be caught up on the recent happenings within the Party. Might they be turned off by a party that seems to be launched from within "Liberal Massachusetts?"
Whatever the case may be, I'm certainly not holding my breath that we'll see any new-found electoral success for the Libertarian Party any time soon.
Contribute to Deval